Barrie Stevens Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, woody2 said: clearly not a success then..... that's like if during ww2 the allies had stopped at the german border and left hitler in charge...... There was insufficient allied support for the final push...and it was a coalition force. The coalition was showing signs of crumbling. The supreme commander Gen. Schwarzkopf was all for pushing on. His view was that one day we would have to do it anyway..(He was right as it happened) It reminded me of Gen Patton who wanted to push on and fight the Russians after Hitler's demise on the basis that one day we will have to anyway (He was almost right)... Gen Schwarzkopf went rather public like Patton but was ordered to keep quiet and he said something like the "Boss is the Boss and the Boss is always right"..And he denied advocating pushing on to get Saddam. (He did advocate it though) He was a soldier so he had to take orders...Both Patton and Schwarzkopf were tank soldiers..Schwarzkopf had been Elvis's CO when the former was doing his national service in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Should read when the latter (Elvis) was doing his national service in Germany.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 14 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: There was insufficient allied support for the final push...and it was a coalition force. The coalition was showing signs of crumbling. The supreme commander Gen. Schwarzkopf was all for pushing on. His view was that one day we would have to do it anyway..(He was right as it happened) It reminded me of Gen Patton who wanted to push on and fight the Russians after Hitler's demise on the basis that one day we will have to anyway (He was almost right)... Gen Schwarzkopf went rather public like Patton but was ordered to keep quiet and he said something like the "Boss is the Boss and the Boss is always right"..And he denied advocating pushing on to get Saddam. (He did advocate it though) He was a soldier so he had to take orders...Both Patton and Schwarzkopf were tank soldiers..Schwarzkopf had been Elvis's CO when the former was doing his national service in Germany. If the Coalition were intending to keep going then they wouldn't have bombed the shit out of infrastructure like river bridges. Once the target list became clear Saddam knew he was safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 39 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: Well, it was a success because the stated aim of the war was the liberation of Kuwait, not regime change in Iraq. bush jnr. said he was going back to finish the job........ doesn't sound like bush snr.completed anything........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 40 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: There was insufficient allied support for the final push...and it was a coalition force. The coalition was showing signs of crumbling. The supreme commander Gen. Schwarzkopf was all for pushing on. His view was that one day we would have to do it anyway..(He was right as it happened) It reminded me of Gen Patton who wanted to push on and fight the Russians after Hitler's demise on the basis that one day we will have to anyway (He was almost right)... Gen Schwarzkopf went rather public like Patton but was ordered to keep quiet and he said something like the "Boss is the Boss and the Boss is always right"..And he denied advocating pushing on to get Saddam. (He did advocate it though) He was a soldier so he had to take orders...Both Patton and Schwarzkopf were tank soldiers..Schwarzkopf had been Elvis's CO when the former was doing his national service in Germany. just remember bush snr. say something like he was going to take bagdad and get saddam...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, woody2 said: just remember bush snr. say something like he was going to take bagdad and get saddam...... Whatever he may have said if it be true the fact remains they had to get it past a 35 nation coalition and there was no appetite at the end of the day for going further in...It was hard enough to scrape that many allies and resources together...I recall then PM John Major meeting British soldiers and being asked questions about future cuts to the forces ("Options for Change" programme)...During these meets the soldiers time and again made it clear that with Kuwait liberated they had done their job and wanted home...Doubtless they would have carried on as would have the US and some others if it was required but the steam had gone out of it by then..Looks bad if your coalition forces of 35 nations start to get wobbly..Looks bad and makes for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Neither the Americans or British were interested in deposing Saddam and governing Iraq themselves in 1991, nevermind the rest of the coalition. They hoped someone else, eg the Kurds or the Shia would get rid of Saddam instead, but they let Saddam’s army keep their helicopters and didn’t stop them when they crushed the rebels. It’s easy to say that Bush Snr should have got rid of Saddam and tried to govern Iraq in 1991 - why would it have been any more successful then than in the years after the 2003 invasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 13 hours ago, Freggyragh said: Neither the Americans or British were interested in deposing Saddam and governing Iraq themselves in 1991, nevermind the rest of the coalition. They hoped someone else, eg the Kurds or the Shia would get rid of Saddam instead, but they let Saddam’s army keep their helicopters and didn’t stop them when they crushed the rebels. It’s easy to say that Bush Snr should have got rid of Saddam and tried to govern Iraq in 1991 - why would it have been any more successful then than in the years after the 2003 invasion? your just like a scud missile....... you can hear you coming but there's duck-all you can do about it..... i was working down in bahrain/ abu dhabi at the time- i remember them going into iraq then running the other way..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, woody2 said: your just like a scud missile....... you can hear you coming but there's duck-all you can do about it..... i was working down in bahrain/ abu dhabi at the time- i remember them going into iraq then running the other way..... One suspects Mr Speaker that the Hon Member....and I use that word with freedom of interpretation....is guilty of a terminological inexactitude.. https://www.definitions.net/definition/terminological inexactitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.